I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Actually, Harris is free to be as mystical as he sees fit.  Perhaps he even has a bent to create his own spiritual system ala L. Ron Hubbard ?  Wouldn't be the first time, would it ?

Isn't he one of the leaders (along with Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens) of the "New Atheist" movement?

Why yes, yes he is....and yet for some strange reason you had made a choice to begin quote-mining from his book The End Of Faith in an effort to ....?  

(  or, perhaps your goal was to simply show that you could quote Harris without actually having to suggest whether or not his position actually supported or denied your point of view.  Yes, No ?   Is confusion an important element in supporting panentheistic arguments ? )

I have already conceded that Harris is free to choose his own path....So ?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Isn't [Sam

Paisley wrote:

Isn't [Sam Harris] one of the leaders (along with Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens) of the "New Atheist" movement?

Being an atheist isn't like being part of a cult. Atheists are free to disagree or agree with any of the "four horsemen". We don't look to them for guidance or something. They don't "lead". Their books are interesting and inspiring, but they're authors who just happen to have books whose topics converge - they're not solely dedicated to "godlessness".

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Do you

nigelTheBold wrote:

Do you often support your questionable pantheistic beliefs with quotes from the even more questionable Christianity?

I think we've covered this: Paisley's a pantheist for three posts, and then a trinitarian for the next three, then ... no, I think that's it. But it's all compatible, since the trinity is one, and everything is ... I don't know any more.

So the update here is that Christian pantheism is more confusing than any other religion, and therefore it is the best. God exists. QED.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Conscious-awareness is not always awareness of something.

Not just terse, unsubstantiated remarks -- terse, unsubstantiated, vague and meaningless remarks. For one who seems preoccupied with ultimate meaning, Mr. P (as iGod referred to him) surprisingly lacks meaning.

The experience of pure awareness (consciouness without an object) can only be validated by personal experience itself. That being said, it is an experience that has been discribed in the world's spiritual traditions. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The experience

Paisley wrote:

The experience of pure awareness (consciouness without an object) can only be validated by personal experience itself. That being said, it is an experience that has been discribed in the world's spiritual traditions. 

Yes, and we know how well all the world's religions agree on the nature of God.

Spirituality as a common state isn't that common. First, the experience is different, and described differently, by each person. This indicates that the spiritual experience is of subjective self, not of objective God. Some describe it in terms devoid of God.

Buddhism, for instance, seeks the state of conscious non-being, just as you describe. Some have even claimed to have achieved it. However, most Buddhists rightfully recognize this as a subjective mental state, not a contact with God.

In another thread, somebody mentioned they had experienced God in exactly the same way you describe. The God he met, however, lacks compassion to the point of being evil. This God not only has no love for us, but devours our thoughts and experiences, rather than holding them lovingly for the rest of eternity.

If you two have completely different views of God obtained in the same way, which one of you is right? How can you be sure you are correct, and he is wrong? How is it logical to assume either one of you is correct, considering neither of you experienced the same God?

Again, what is the coherent epistemology that supports your metaphysics?

(We'll cover the lifespan of a pantheistic God in the face of the entropic death of the universe in a different post, once we've established your epistemology.)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I think

HisWillness wrote:

I think we've covered this: Paisley's a pantheist for three posts, and then a trinitarian for the next three, then ... no, I think that's it. But it's all compatible, since the trinity is one, and everything is ... I don't know any more.

So the update here is that Christian pantheism is more confusing than any other religion, and therefore it is the best. God exists. QED.

Well, I guess three on, three off is a good set for a trinitarian.

All I ask is internal consistency. I don't think I'm asking for too much. Just internal consistency, and a logical epistemology. That's it. Just internal consistency, a logical epistemology, and a few derivable truths that are congruent in some fashion with reality. Not even observed reality, just reality. It could be his own reality. All I want is internal consistency, a logical epistemology, a few derivable truths that are congruent with some reality, and an admission that he's whackier than a carnival game.

I'm not asking for much.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Faith is not contingent upon a perfect theology.

The history of man is in agreement with your statement. There have been many with faith in many theologies, when the theology finally fails it is replaced by faith in a new revised theology. That gives you an out when you find your intuition was perceiving incorrect information about your god.

Any theological system or philosophical system is just a working model which is ultimately subject to change. But the same applies to scientific theories too.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
[You have said that you arrived at your faith as follows:

Paisley wrote:
I will acknowledge that my basic belief in God is probably "not rationally derived." This is not to say that it is irrational. I distinguish between the terms irrational and nonrational.

Which in your words is based on intuition, not reason or observation. When your intuition changes you can nonrationally develop a new faith in a revised god to meet your needs.

In the context that I am using the terms, "reason" is associated with logical analysis (or the analytical mind) while "faith" is associated with intuition (or the intuitive mind). I see the intuitive and the analyticial as being primarily complementary aspects, not necessarily contradictory ones.

Theology is "faith seeking understanding." And while particular theologies may come and go, faith itself doesn't. My intellectual understanding of the divine mystery may change, but my belief and trust in God will not.

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:All I ask

nigelTheBold wrote:

All I ask is internal consistency. I don't think I'm asking for too much. Just internal consistency, and a logical epistemology. That's it. [...]

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our three weapons are surpise, fear, ruthless efficiency, and nice red uniforms. Ugh. I'll come in again."

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Analytic, with a side of intuition

Paisley wrote:

Any theological system or philosophical system is just a working model which is ultimately subject to change. But the same applies to scientific theories too.

Ah. Thank you. Something we can discuss.

In the case of science, the ontology changes only when evidence (that is, observation of reality) stacks up against a current theory. In most of those cases, it turns out that the old ontology is merely too limited, to restricted. Often it is merely a subset of the newer, larger ontology.

I don't mean to specifically exclude God. If you like, I can substitute "natural reality" for "reality," or any other term that we find mutually agreeable to refer to the observable universe.

Anyway. The key is that science is bounded by our perception and understanding of reality. Some people believe that our current ontology is merely one of many possible coherent ontologies that model our data. I, for one, believe that. It's happened before, as I mentioned earlier, when we shifted from Newtonian dynamics to quantum mechanics in the first part of the twentieth century. I also believe it will happen again when we discover what lies beneath the quantum. ("Turtles all the way down." ) I suspect we will all be surprised, just as we were eighty years ago.

Science does that based on the accumulation of data. The new data doesn't destroy the old; it merely reframes it in the new ontology.

Is there an analogous process in theology? Is each replaced theological ontology added to and increased by the new? Or does the new ontology completely replace the old? What is the driving process?

And upon what is the working model based?

Quote:

In the context that I am using the terms, "reason" is associated with logical analysis (or the analytical mind) while "faith" is associated with intuition (or the intuitive mind). I see the intuitive and the analyticial as being primarily complementary aspects, not necessarily contradictory ones.

I definitely agree that the analytic and intuitive minds (as you've defined them) are complementary. Very much so. I believe their roles are different, but perhaps that is merely the use to which I've put them. It may be that our philosophic differences are merely based upon our different use of the analytic vs. intuitive.

For instance, I distrust intuition. It's an excellent input into the analytic process, but I firmly believe intuition is irrational. (That doesn't make it useless, it just makes it untrustworthy and unreliable as a source of knowledge.)

Quote:

Theology is "faith seeking understanding." And while particular theologies may come and go, faith itself doesn't. My intellectual understanding of the divine mystery may change, but my belief and trust in God will not.

Is faith the purest base of your working model? This is the foundation upon which all theological systems rest?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley wrote:To

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
To operate on perceptions is to operate on beliefs.

To operate on beliefs requires beliefs.

Agreed. You operate on beliefs.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
To operate on perceptions is to operate on beliefs.

To operate on beliefs requires beliefs.

Agreed. You operate on beliefs.

Please demonstrate how.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Objective immortality is that which exists in the divine memory; it's not extended in time or space.

Nonsense. Immortality itself requires time, as does memory.

Okay. It's everlasting in time.

In which case, you're back to the exact problem you used 'not extended in time' precisely to get out of, specifically:

BMcD wrote:
Well, 'immortality' strongly implies continued existence with unending movement through time. Time, being a property/dimension of the physical universe, can only apply to things subject to physical laws, including the laws of thermodynamics, which indicate that eventually, everything breaks down. And if everything breaks down, then immortality... isn't.

There are two different ways of looking at the eternal:

1) everlasting in time

2) the timeless or ever-present now

 

Quote:
"The present holds it all. The past "exists" as a memory in the present moment. The future "exists" as a range of possibilities latent in the present moment." pg. 46 "Process Theology" (A Basic Introduction) by C. Robert Mesle
 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:There are two

Paisley wrote:

There are two different ways of looking at the eternal:

1) everlasting in time

2) the timeless or ever-present now

 

Quote:
"The present holds it all. The past "exists" as a memory in the present moment. The future "exists" as a range of possibilities latent in the present moment." pg. 46 "Process Theology" (A Basic Introduction) by C. Robert Mesle
 

Save that 'time' is no different than 'length' in that it is one of the dimensional axes of motion, and nothing more. The 'ever-present now', as you put it, is merely a suspension or lack of awareness of motion through time. In this respect, that which has no awareness of time remains subject to the effects of time, it simply has no perception of those effects because it remains ignorant of its own past states and future poptential states. Regardless of which usage you espouse, you still have failed to escape the laws of thermodynamics.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Any

Paisley wrote:

Any theological system or philosophical system is just a working model which is ultimately subject to change. But the same applies to scientific theories too.

 

I "absolutely" knew, forsaw or was it hoped you'd say that. The difference is simple;  religious beliefs are based on what you call rational intution whereas the scientific theories are altered based on observation and testing. I suppose when pressed on a belief you can see into yourself looking for a way to revise the god that you have rationalized under the difficult to reach level of Sat-Chit-Ananda you mentioned many posts ago. You have claimed you have no proof for your universal/mind as claimed to Lifewhispers and others:

lifewhispers wrote:

And, your proof of the existence of such a Universal Mind/Spirit would be?

Paisley wrote:

I don't have a proof.

 

 

Since you have no proof, you can alter what you say is god at your perceived whim. You have also said:

Paisley wrote:

At the very least, I would say that God is consciously-aware. This is self-evident to me.

So this means the accuracy of your god is you. You supported this position by saying:

Paisley wrote:

The point is that there is no scientific test for consciousness. I can only validate my own conscious-awareness. 

You also said:

Paisley wrote:

I believe that absolute truth can be experientially known.

You established clearly to us that you have defined your own theology as well as faith and hence can alter it as your perception or intuition of your god changes. You equate this as equal to the scientific method though no testing is possible as you have admitted. Or is it as you also said it can be experimently known?

Since you wish to consider your intuition as not irrational you said at various times:

Paisley wrote:

I will acknowledge that my basic belief in God is probably "not rationally derived." This is not to say that it is irrational. I distinguish between the terms irrational and nonrational. The nonrational is that which is not derived through rational means.

 

Faith most-likely stems from spiritual intuition, not logical analysis.

 

Belief and reason, rationality and intuition...mutually entail each other.

 

Reason and belief mutually entail each other. Without belief, there is no critical thinking. Every logical argument begins with a premise or assumption that is believed to be true. Problem solving requires not only logical analysis but also intuitive input.  This notion that faith and rationality are incompatible is simply false.

 

So where does that leave us?

The definition of nonrational says:

nonrational
adjective
1. not based on reason; "there is a great deal that is nonrational in modern culture" 
2. obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation [syn: intuitive

You are telling the average person in the world that God can be only found through intuition not reason or observation. Though you have said explicitly that reason and belief mutually entail each other.

So which is it?

Whatever is convenient?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Why assume the

BMcD wrote:
Why assume the existence of a nonphysical element to our existence until there's evidence for one?

Because the experience of free will qualifies as evidence.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:For

nigelTheBold wrote:

For instance, I distrust intuition. It's an excellent input into the analytic process, but I firmly believe intuition is irrational. (That doesn't make it useless, it just makes it untrustworthy and unreliable as a source of knowledge.)

Can I please answer this. Smiling

Here's a paper on decision making experiments which were done in Amsterdam in 2006. The results appeared to demonstrate that decisions of great complexity ie involving many factors for consideration, are more satisfactorily handled by unconscious or intuitive processes which would suggest that intuitive processing may well be quite rational and perhaps even computationally superior to conscious analytical processing.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD wrote:Why

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Why assume the existence of a nonphysical element to our existence until there's evidence for one?

Because the experience of free will qualifies as evidence.

What experience of free will? Can you be sure of this experience, or are you simply not aware of any methods by which your decisions could have been consistently pre-determined? Can you demonstrate that human decision-making is not, in fact, simply incredibly complex aggregate stimulus-response systems coming into play, and that if we knew all of the factors in someone's past, we would still not be able to predict their reactions as consistently and empirically as we can the reaction of magnesium compounds to being dropped into water?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:nigelTheBold

Eloise wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

For instance, I distrust intuition. It's an excellent input into the analytic process, but I firmly believe intuition is irrational. (That doesn't make it useless, it just makes it untrustworthy and unreliable as a source of knowledge.)

Can I please answer this. Smiling

Here's a paper on decision making experiments which were done in Amsterdam in 2006. The results appeared to demonstrate that decisions of great complexity ie involving many factors for consideration, are more satisfactorily handled by unconscious or intuitive processes which would suggest that intuitive processing may well be quite rational and perhaps even computationally superior to conscious analytical processing.

I've read derivatives and followups to this report since it first came out. It made perfect sense to me at the time, and I'm sure came as no great shock to many people.

That's why I said it makes an excellent input to the analytic portion. It's like the archetypal "Eureka!" moment (although those are rarer than we make them appear in popular culture). That's often why we say things like, "Let me sleep on it." I do the same thing-- when I have a particularly hard problem, I try to not think about it for a while. Then, when I come back, I often find I have new and interesting approaches.

But in the end, it's the analytic mind that filters out the noise, and hopefully recognizes the value of the intuitive input. That's why I agreed that there must be a balance. The difference is on which you use as the filter to get rid of the cruft. I submit the analytic mind is better at recognizing silliness than the intuitive mind.

That's all I was getting at. That's all I meant by "untrustworthy." If we let our intuitive processes run amok, we start to sound like Eddie Izzard at his most surreal.

(Also: the similarities between thought processes and the process of evolution go far beyond Dawkin's idea of memes. Consider the intuitive mind as genetic diversity in a population, and the analytic as the selection pressure on the population. There's some interesting work in information theory along those lines.)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Eloise

nigelTheBold wrote:

Eloise wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

For instance, I distrust intuition. It's an excellent input into the analytic process, but I firmly believe intuition is irrational. (That doesn't make it useless, it just makes it untrustworthy and unreliable as a source of knowledge.)

Can I please answer this. Smiling

Here's a paper on decision making experiments which were done in Amsterdam in 2006. The results appeared to demonstrate that decisions of great complexity ie involving many factors for consideration, are more satisfactorily handled by unconscious or intuitive processes which would suggest that intuitive processing may well be quite rational and perhaps even computationally superior to conscious analytical processing.

I've read derivatives and followups to this report since it first came out. It made perfect sense to me at the time, and I'm sure came as no great shock to many people.

Indeed not.

Quote:

That's why I said it makes an excellent input to the analytic portion. It's like the archetypal "Eureka!" moment (although those are rarer than we make them appear in popular culture). That's often why we say things like, "Let me sleep on it." I do the same thing-- when I have a particularly hard problem, I try to not think about it for a while. Then, when I come back, I often find I have new and interesting approaches.

Fair enough we're on the same page somewhat, here, I have just one niggle....

Quote:

But in the end, it's the analytic mind that filters out the noise, and hopefully recognizes the value of the intuitive input. That's why I agreed that there must be a balance.

I too agree with the notion of a balance. I'm not sure I agree with what I am reading as your notion of balance though. It would seem to me that you advocate balance in favour of the analytical mind, as opposed to any one more approaching of equilibrium over both. I don't see that view as justified i the light of what we know about the abilities of intiuition. I don't see that the consequence of the intuitive mind being more radical and spontaneous outweighs in importance its extraordinary computational prowess. To wit, why not if you've got it, flaunt it?  I would think that in the knowledge that the human unconscious cognitive faculty outperforms the conscious ones in complex work we'd be inclined to want to use it to it's best advantage. Why should its extravangance intimidate us into intellectually oppressing ourselves?

Quote:

The difference is on which you use as the filter to get rid of the cruft.

I agree that you're right to an extent, but the filter is just a filter, unless it's God to you, why would you place so much more confidence in this one part of yourself than in another proven equally amazing part?

Quote:

I submit the analytic mind is better at recognizing silliness than the intuitive mind.

I thoroughly disagree. Analytic minds engage in no end of silliness. I would modify your statement to say that the analytical mind is more consistently structured, making for it's ability to connect processes in repeatable order more efficient. Repeatability may seem less silly in some respects, but I submit that compulsive repetitiousness is ... well... silly.  Unconscious mind avoids it while analytical mind thrives on it.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Please present the alternatives to materialism.

Note I mentioned you defined materialism as "Newtonian dynamics." You seem to feel that quantum mechanics and "materialism" are mutually exclusive.

They are not.

Yes, they are. Materialism is the view that physical matter (mass/energy) constitutes fundamental reality and that all phenomena must be explained in physical terms. This means that each and every physical event must have a physical cause. If not, materialism is invalidated.

Quote:
materialism : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

If quantum theory (as presently defined according to the Copenhagen interpretation) is true, then nature is fundamentally indeterminate and the perpetual occurrence of "uncaused" physical events is the natural state of affairs. This depiction of nature is incompatible with materialism. Why? Because materialism requires that every physical event must have a physical explanation.

nigelTheBold wrote:
However, to satisfy the implied request:

The collapse of a quantum waveform is an informational event. When one or the other property of the waveform (position or velocity) is required for interaction, the waveform collapses. This is a probabilistic event, bounded by the waveform, collapsed by interaction. There is no God in the waveform, nor in the collapse of the waveform. There is only information, and the exchange of information. The same is true of other quantum events, such as the exchange of virtual particles.

(And, as an aside, this is all considered naturalistic. "Materialistic." It might not fit with your 19th century view of materialism, but it is materialism.)

The question is not whether it is "naturalistic." The question is whether it is materialistic. And it's not. Attempting to explain quantum mechanics in terms of information theory has not resolved the dilemma of probabilistic events. In fact, information theory and quantum decoherence just lends further support to pantheism/panentheism - the view that ultimate reality is conscious and exercising free will (making choices among different possibilities).

nigelTheBold wrote:
The problem comes when that faith interferes with the science and knowledge, such as the case with Behe. His faith guides his research, and though he has been disproven many times, he still presents his unscientific assertions as scientific hypothesis.

Paisley wrote:
What does this have to do with me?

You claim to be smart. Figure it out.

I never "claimed to be smart."  That being said, I fail to see what relevance Behe has with this discussion.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Wow. I know you like to avoid directly responding to valid points by spouting nonsense, but I think you are outdoing yourself here. At no point do I mention belief. I do mention faith, but only to the extent that you conflate it with knowledge. At no point do I claim even faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. I imply they are different. Their relationship to each other is debatable, but that debate isn't on the table here. This is about your lack of a coherent epistemology to support your questionable metaphysics.

The fact is that we all function based on beliefs. This is indisputable. The notion that you operate purely based on reason divorced of any beliefs is a flagrant display of intellectual dishonesty.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Now you are conflating faith and belief. Is there no meaning in the English language you can't twist?

Atheists typically define faith as "belief without sufficient evidence."

nigelTheBold wrote:
However: it's a belief backed by observation, and past experience. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned that way, but I like my belief backed by, y'know, actual facts. That's what distinguishes it from faith.

To begin with, let's not lose focus of what is being contested here - namely, that giving something the "benefit of the doubt" does not entail faith. I say it does.

Secondly, please explain to me why you believe that all your beliefs are based on actual facts.

Finally, my faith in the reality of God's existence and presence is based on my own subjective experience - specifically, on an intuitive sense experience. This doesn't mean it is entirely without rational support. I have employed my analytical capabilities to interpret it and give it verbal expression.

nigelTheBold wrote:
You As far as out ability to function without faith: planera don't have faith, but they seem to function quite well.

Paisley wrote:
Are there any planera (water elms) who are members of RRS?

Must. Not. Respond. With. Obvious. Answer.

Avoid the actual discussion much? Or just always?

The subject at hand is whether or not rationality and faith (reason and belief) require each other. I say they do; you say they don't. Having explained this, if you don't believe a tree is a conscious thinking entity, then what is the point of stating that planera function without faith?

nigelTheBold wrote:
nigelTheBold wrote:
Dude, you know that hope != faith, right?

Paisley wrote:
No, I didn't know that.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Well, now you do. Fath and hope are different.

Faith entails hope.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Do you often support your questionable pantheistic beliefs with quotes from the even more questionable Christianity?

Yes. Do you have a problem with the definition of faith as expressed in Hebrews 11:1? If so, what is it?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I have

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I have already conceded that Harris is free to choose his own path....So ?

I think it is ironic that one of the most prominent voices of "atheism" is actually a practicing Buddhist.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The fact is

Paisley wrote:
The fact is that we all function based on beliefs. This is indisputable.

I dispute this. You have yet to demonstrate that I function on beliefs. As I have repeatedly said, to function based on beliefs requires beliefs. You have yet to demonstrate that I have beliefs. I have expectations, but I readily admit those expectations have no substance beyond my interaction with the universe I perceive. Expectations are not beliefs. Belief is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing". I neither trust, nor have confidence in, my perceptions. I simply have nothing else I can interact with.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Isn't [Sam Harris] one of the leaders (along with Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens) of the "New Atheist" movement?

Being an atheist isn't like being part of a cult. Atheists are free to disagree or agree with any of the "four horsemen". We don't look to them for guidance or something. They don't "lead". Their books are interesting and inspiring, but they're authors who just happen to have books whose topics converge - they're not solely dedicated to "godlessness".

I disagree. The "New Atheists" are exhibiting elements of a fundamentalist religious group.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley wrote:The

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The fact is that we all function based on beliefs. This is indisputable.

I dispute this. You have yet to demonstrate that I function on beliefs. As I have repeatedly said, to function based on beliefs requires beliefs. You have yet to demonstrate that I have beliefs. I have expectations, but I readily admit those expectations have no substance beyond my interaction with the universe I perceive. Expectations are not beliefs. Belief is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing". I neither trust, nor have confidence in, my perceptions. I simply have nothing else I can interact with.

Expectations are not beliefs?

"I don't have beliefs...I have expectations....I don't have faith....I have expectations...I don't have trust....I have expectations...I don't have hope....I have expectations."  

When you take a plane flight, do you TRUST the pilots to safely fly you from your point of departure to your destination?

You don't have beliefs? What kind of nonsense is this? Nihilism?  Puhlease!

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I think

HisWillness wrote:
I think we've covered this: Paisley's a pantheist for three posts, and then a trinitarian for the next three, then ... no, I think that's it. But it's all compatible, since the trinity is one, and everything is ... I don't know any more.

So the update here is that Christian pantheism is more confusing than any other religion, and therefore it is the best. God exists. QED.

I would categorized my theology as trinitarian panentheism. In Christian theology, this is known as the "perichoresis" (the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son and all believers).

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." John 17:21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley wrote:The

BMcD wrote:

Paisley wrote:
The fact is that we all function based on beliefs. This is indisputable.

I dispute this. You have yet to demonstrate that I function on beliefs. As I have repeatedly said, to function based on beliefs requires beliefs. You have yet to demonstrate that I have beliefs. I have expectations,

Um..... sorry to poke BMc but expectations presuppose beliefs. You have to believe something in order to expect it.

Quote:

but I readily admit those expectations have no substance beyond my interaction with the universe I perceive.

I'd say most people drstically underestimate the relevance of the substance which they do have in relation to the world we perceive.

Quote:

Expectations are not beliefs. Belief is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing". I neither trust, nor have confidence in, my perceptions. I simply have nothing else I can interact with.

So you're saying you expect to percieve... ummm.. something... not anything specific as that would entail a belief, unfortunately within that expectation there is then the belief that you will percieve.   It seems to me what you're trying to get across is that you actually have no expectations, therefore no beliefs and therefore... what was the original point again? I'm lost..

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
..... truth requires

   ..... truth requires un-truth  .....  free will requires .... un free, ....ummm ? All IS ONE.

The buddhists say focus on the "MIDDLE" ......     ummmm        Know the options in all directions , is knowing options .....  so the middle .....


 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Um..... sorry

Eloise wrote:

Um..... sorry to poke BMc but expectations presuppose beliefs. You have to believe something in order to expect it.

Not at all. Expectation is not belief, but rather a predisposition to accept that my perceptions will continue to be internally consistent. That I am predisposed to accept their internal cohesion does not mean that I trust them to, or am confident that they will, only that  it will not prove disruptive should they do so.

Quote:

Quote:

Expectations are not beliefs. Belief is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing". I neither trust, nor have confidence in, my perceptions. I simply have nothing else I can interact with.

So you're saying you expect to percieve... ummm.. something... not anything specific as that would entail a belief, unfortunately within that expectation there is then the belief that you will percieve.   It seems to me what you're trying to get across is that you actually have no expectations, therefore no beliefs and therefore... what was the original point again? I'm lost..

Indeed, you do seem to be. I hope my earlier statement in this reply has helped some.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Expectations

Paisley wrote:
Expectations are not beliefs?

Correct. As I said above, expectation is merely a predisposition to accept that my perceptions will continue to be internally consistent. This means only that should they fail to continue to be internally consistent, it will disrupt the pattern of interactions with my perceptions that I commonly fall into. It does not mean that I place any trust in them to do so. In fact, I have several contingencies planned, depending on the degree to which internal consistency is disrupted.

Example: Should my car keys suddenly fail to start my car, I plan to see if my house keys will. The disruption is minor, so the contingency is not extreme. Should, on the other hand, one of the fundamental laws of physics suddenly seem to no longer apply, I intend to go out on my second-story deck and see if I can fly. Smiling

Paisley wrote:

When you take a plane flight, do you TRUST the pilots to safely fly you from your point of departure to your destination?

When I take a plane flight, I don't trust that the plane exists. How then can I trust that it will arrive safely? I accept that my senses are telling me it exists, and I interact with what I perceive, but no, I place no trust in its reality, or that of the pilots, just as I place no trust in the reality of my keyboard, monitor, or you. I interact with my perception of these things, but cannot put any trust in those perceptions to be true.

Paisley wrote:
You don't have beliefs? What kind of nonsense is this? Nihilism?  Puhlease!

Nihilism? Not hardly. Nihilism holds that existence is pointless. My existence is all I can be sure of, and so it is the only thing to which I can rationally ascribe value.

 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I have already conceded that Harris is free to choose his own path....So ?

I think it is ironic that one of the most prominent voices of "atheism" is actually a practicing Buddhist.

Buddha was not a God.    

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans5.htm  ( From Good Question Good Answers

 with Ven. S. Dhammika )  

"Was the Buddha a god ?  No, he was not.  He did not claim that he was a god, the child of a god or even the messenger from a god.  He was a man who perfected himself and taught that if we follow his example, we could perfect ourselves also."

 

Believing in gods being something that only theists like yourself do...not atheists. Perhaps your sense of irony is a bit premature.

 

( Is Harris in the process of defecting ?   Who knows ?  Speaking of defecting, Dan Barker is a former fundamentalist Christian preacher who is now a very public atheist. He still even receives royalties for Christian songs that he authored. Would you feel influenced to question your faith if I began quoting passages from his book ?  No ?  I find that ironic. )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
...ps, if your obsession

...ps, if your obsession with Harris' budding spirituality is still an important issue I recommend that you visit samharris.org and log onto the forum.  Perhaps your search for ultimate truth regarding his actual beliefs can be answered there.

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Yes, they are.

Paisley wrote:

Yes, they are. Materialism is the view that physical matter (mass/energy) constitutes fundamental reality and that all phenomena must be explained in physical terms. This means that each and every physical event must have a physical cause. If not, materialism is invalidated.

We've been through this, though! You talk about "cause" as though it has relevance to the definition of matter, first of all, and then attribute the indeterminate part of probability to something non-physical. That's not a reasonable conclusion.

Paisley wrote:
If quantum theory (as presently defined according to the Copenhagen interpretation) is true, then nature is fundamentally indeterminate and the perpetual occurrence of "uncaused" physical events is the natural state of affairs. This depiction of nature is incompatible with materialism. Why? Because materialism requires that every physical event must have a physical explanation.

It still does.

Paisley wrote:
The fact is that we all function based on beliefs. This is indisputable.

That's why nobody has disputed it.

Paisley wrote:
Atheists typically define faith as "belief without sufficient evidence."

Let's say "belief without evidence" and leave the sufficient right out of there. Let's make it an argument about what constitutes evidence. Why not?

Paisley wrote:
Secondly, please explain to me why you believe that all your beliefs are based on actual facts.

I can't answer for nigel, but I tend to look things up before I'm convinced. Also, for most things, it's pretty easy to research. For the supernatural, you're kept from knowledge by an invisible force-field or some such thing.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:nigelTheBold

Eloise wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

I submit the analytic mind is better at recognizing silliness than the intuitive mind.

I thoroughly disagree. Analytic minds engage in no end of silliness. I would modify your statement to say that the analytical mind is more consistently structured, making for it's ability to connect processes in repeatable order more efficient. Repeatability may seem less silly in some respects, but I submit that compulsive repetitiousness is ... well... silly.  Unconscious mind avoids it while analytical mind thrives on it.

Interesting points. I'll have to sleep on that one.  Smiling

I'm not sure repeatability is tied to compulsive repitition, but I think I understand the broader meaning. I'd hope the analytic mind could recognize its own silliness, though. But with your insights here, perhaps it isn't as clear-cut as I made it out to be.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I would

Paisley wrote:

I would categorized my theology as trinitarian panentheism. In Christian theology, this is known as the "perichoresis" (the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son and all believers).

Okay. So non-believers don't get to be part of the triune club? The act of believing causes a spiritual bonding?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:If quantum

Paisley wrote:

If quantum theory (as presently defined according to the Copenhagen interpretation) is true, then nature is fundamentally indeterminate and the perpetual occurrence of "uncaused" physical events is the natural state of affairs. This depiction of nature is incompatible with materialism. Why? Because materialism requires that every physical event must have a physical explanation.

Indeterminacy != no physical explanation. It's a probabilistic explanation. That doesn't exclude physicality. Every probabilistic event we know of so far has a physical cause. Ergo, materialism and QM are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

The question is not whether it is "naturalistic." The question is whether it is materialistic. And it's not. Attempting to explain quantum mechanics in terms of information theory has not resolved the dilemma of probabilistic events. In fact, information theory and quantum decoherence just lends further support to pantheism/panentheism - the view that ultimate reality is conscious and exercising free will (making choices among different possibilities).

Would you please stop trying to change what you are asking? Please?

The question was:

Quote:

Please present the alternatives to materialism.

Which I did, at least for one case. There are other alternatives that explain quantum theory in terms of pure geometry. Still others describe it as standing waves of energy. Yet another describes it in terms of P-branes. However, my favorite is the "information theory" explanation, as it fits with my field of expertise (meager as that might be): computers and information processing. I don't think it's necessarily the best of them, but it's my favorite. From a most-likely standpoint, I'd go with the standing waves of energy, though the P-brane/M-theory approach may prove worthy as well, once it's worked out.

And please explain how information theory supports pantheism IN THE LEAST. Information theory isn't about conscious decision making. It's about how simple, deterministic rules combine into a system that is chaotic and probabilistic (at least the relavent portion of information theory; there's a lot more to information theory than that). Any "intelligence" in the process is strictly illusory. If it wasn't, don't you think we'd have artifiicial intelligence by now?

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Now you are conflating faith and belief. Is there no meaning in the English language you can't twist?

Atheists typically define faith as "belief without sufficient evidence."

Yes. That means belief and faith are not the same thing. It implies there are beliefs with sufficient evidence. The terms are not equivalent.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
However: it's a belief backed by observation, and past experience. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned that way, but I like my belief backed by, y'know, actual facts. That's what distinguishes it from faith.

To begin with, let's not lose focus of what is being contested here - namely, that giving something the "benefit of the doubt" does not entail faith. I say it does.

Because it isn't belief that the assumption is true. It is a role-playing game in which you pretend that it's true, and then you test it against reality to see if it is true. However, if you wish to see that as having temporary, contingent, fake faith, I'd buy that. In an ideal situation (which is ideal, and not real, I know), the researcher wouldn't even hope that it's true. But we're not dispassionate, and we do have hopes, and for some, it's not even fake faith.

Quote:

Secondly, please explain to me why you believe that all your beliefs are based on actual facts.

All my beliefs are not based on facts. There's nobody on earth who can say that. However, those that aren't based on facts are irrational. That doesn't make them wrong, necessarily (because I am always right, except when I disagree with my wife). They are suspect, and I try not to use them in an argument about the rationality of those beliefs, or the irrationality of the opposing beliefs. If your point is that we all hold irrational beliefs, then I'd agree.

However, a good portion of my beliefs are based on facts. So, let us restrict the discussion to that subset. That is the subset that is based on science.

The ontology that science gives us is coherent, and congruent with reality. It's coherent in that all the pieces fit. Though we are missing many pieces, the ones we have all fit. We know it's congruent with reality because it has made predictions about reality, predictions about things unknown. The application of science gives us knowledge that is testable against the observations of reality.

Some philosphers and scientists believe there is more than one coherent ontology which is congruent with reality. That is probably so. However, when this has proven so in the past, the new ontology does not destroy the old; rather, it subsumes it. Also, the new ontology never destroys facts (observed data). It is built upon the old facts just as solidly as the old ontology. Usually, it is new facts that require the new ontology.

There's a reason I believe this is an accurate view of reality. All new observed data fits will within the old data. In the few cases where we've experienced what Kuhn called a "paradigm shift" (God, I hate that phrase), the new ontology accounts for not only the new data, but the old. Each new fact that is not inconsistent with the ontology gives support to the ontology. Since we've not found any facts in opposition to our ontology, it seems to be well-proven. Supported by facts.

The great thing is, it's possible to completely disrupt the ontology simply by repeatible observation of a fact that is in contradiction with the ontology. Since the ontology uses rigid math to make predictions, it's not some vague wishy-washy prediction like is made in the Bible or on the front page of the checkstand tabloids. These are precise predictions, predictions that are open to anyone to test for themselves. They don't depend on subjective interpretation or revelation. They aren't handed down from on high. The didn't come from some drug-addled subconscious nightmare. They are testable. (I believe I covered this in a post concerning the collision of QM and Newtonian dynamics.)

 

As a side note about relative ontologies, there's interesting research going on in string theory. There are five distinct string theories, each with its own coherent ontology. None of these have been tested yet, and so this isn't part of the "my beliefs supported by facts" discussion. It's just an interesting, and related, side-note.

Each of the string theory variants exhibits duality with the other variants. This indicates that each is merely a facet of a more fundamental process. And so M-theory was born. What's interesting about this is that it doesn't destroy the various string theories; it unites them, in ways we didn't expect. So, here we had variant coherent ontologies that have potentially been consumed by a larger, single, coherent ontology. This is exciting from a scientific standpoint, and interesting from a philosophic one.

Now, as string theory hasn't been proven (though perhaps the large hadron collider can help), M-theory is also questionable. Do I have faith in it? No. It may be true. It may not. But, we will find out. It is within our means to test it, to objectively verify the likelihood of its truth. What I like about M-theory is that it brings everything full-circle to the physical. That is, the materialistic. What I dislike is that it's not complete. It holds great promise -- much more than any of the independent string theories, which all fail in various ways to work within, or extend in a coherent fashion, our current ontology. M-theory, incomplete as it is, does exactly that: it extends our current ontology in a coherent way, and explains the various string theories in much cleaner terms. At least, it seems as if it will, when complete.

Quote:

Finally, my faith in the reality of God's existence and presence is based on my own subjective experience - specifically, on an intuitive sense experience. This doesn't mean it is entirely without rational support. I have employed my analytical capabilities to interpret it and give it verbal expression.

If God is objectively real, then anyone should be able to go through the same introspection, and come to the same conclusion. How do you explain this is not so?

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
nigelTheBold wrote:
Dude, you know that hope != faith, right?

Paisley wrote:
No, I didn't know that.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Well, now you do. Fath and hope are different.

Faith entails hope.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Do you often support your questionable pantheistic beliefs with quotes from the even more questionable Christianity?

Yes. Do you have a problem with the definition of faith as expressed in Hebrews 11:1? If so, what is it?

I have faith that the universe is going to wind down some day, and there will be nothing left but a blank plane of spent energy. How in the world does that entail hope?

(Yes, that's one of my irrational beliefs. Although we have evidence of an entropic heat death for the unvierse, we don't really have a clear picture of what that might be.)

However, when I was younger, I hoped for someone with whom to build a relationship. I didn't have faith. I hoped I would find a job in physics. I didn't have faith I would. In fact, now I work with computers. I hope to have Thai food for dinner tonight. I don't have much faith in that at all.

Faith and hope are distinct ideas, and are not synonyms. That's all I'm saying.

As for the quote:

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." So faith is nothing more than a desire for something to come about, for something to be, to the point you believe it to be true. I'll definitely agree that is one aspect. It's the "Evidence of things not seen" that is pure, grade-A, FDA-approved bullshit. It's not evidence by any stretch of the imagination. It's a desire, a belief, and a belief is not evidence, no matter how fervently held.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:"Was

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
"Was the Buddha a god ?  No, he was not.  He did not claim that he was a god, the child of a god or even the messenger from a god.  He was a man who perfected himself and taught that if we follow his example, we could perfect ourselves also."

Buddhist cosmology includes a hierarchy of gods.

Quote:
Brahmā in Buddhsim is the generic name for a type of exalted passionless deity (deva), of which there are a very large number in Buddhist cosmology.

source: Wikipedia "Brahma (Buddhist)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_%28Buddhism%29

Gautama Buddha is worshipped in both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism (the two major schools of Buddhism).

Quote:
Even though an Absolute Creator God is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration and worship of Guatama Buddha (and other Buddhas) do play a major role in both Theravad and Mahayan Buddhism.

source: Wikipedia "God in Buddhism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism 

The Buddha himself proclaimed himself as the "god above gods."

Quote:
In Mahayana traditions, it is believed that there are countless Buddhas, all of one essence--that of "Tathata" ("suchness" or "thusness" ) – and it is in this sense that the Buddha proclaims himself as "Tathagata" and exalts himself in theistic terms beyond all other "gods" when he declares, (Lalitavistara Sutra), "I am the god above the gods, superior to all the gods; no god is like me – how could there be a higher?" There are also many examples in the Pāli Canon, where the Buddha shows his magical superiority over the Brahma class of gods

source: Wikipedia "God in Buddhism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
]Believing in gods being something that only theists like yourself do...not atheists. Perhaps your sense of irony is a bit premature.

No, it's not premature. I'm familiar enough with Buddhism to know that it is not compatible with atheism. Evidently, you think it is.  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
( Is Harris in the process of defecting ?   Who knows ?

He has already gone on record stating that he did not identify himself as an atheist prior to the publishing of his first book. Indeed, he never stated that he was an atheist in "The End of Faith."

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Speaking of defecting, Dan Barker is a former fundamentalist Christian preacher who is now a very public atheist. He still even receives royalties for Christian songs that he authored. Would you feel influenced to question your faith if I began quoting passages from his book ?  No ?  I find that ironic. )

I am not a fundamentalist Christian and I have never quoted Dan Barker as supporting my theistic views.  So, I fail to see your point.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
]Believing in gods being something that only theists like yourself do...not atheists. Perhaps your sense of irony is a bit premature.

No, it's not premature. I'm familiar enough with Buddhism to know that it is not compatible with atheism. Evidently, you think it is.  

If you are familiar with Buddhism, then you know that there are forms that do not have deities. There is both theistic Buddhism and atheistic Buddhism. There are tall tales and legends about Buddha in most variants, but not all have Buddha as a God, nor any other God at all.

Buddhism at its simplist is a method of living without causing yourself pain. You don't even have to be Buddhist to follow it. Remove Buddha entirely, and the core remains. There is no other religion that can say the same.

It'd work, too, if only they'd stop coming out with cool new video games, and gadgets, and whatnot.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:shikko

Paisley wrote:

shikko wrote:
Nonrational beliefs can be used as premises in an argument, but if their assumptions of correctness cause problems, that is evidence that the assumptions are incorrect.  So given that you are starting with a non- and irrational assumption that "a god exists", where do you go from there?

Which came first...logical analysis or intuition?

Thank you kindly for completely failing to answer my points.

Before I can play ball with you for a minute, I'll have to define the terms you're using since you didn't bother to.  "Logical analysis" I am taking to mean the process of making an educated guesses based on past experience.  "Intuition" is "I think X, but I don't know why".  Intuition is a slightly more complicated form of instinct.

I would guess that analysis came first; the study of cause and effect.  Invertebrates can be conditioned, so they have a way to process cause and effect.  They also have instincts.  Intuition, however, I don't think they have.

If you mean actual logical analysis, as in the process of induction or deduction, I'm not going to play ball at all because you're asking pointless questions.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:shikko

Paisley wrote:

shikko wrote:
Paisley wrote:
1) Harris never identified himself once as an "atheist" in the book.

Which in no way invalidates his argument.  You could loudly proclaim a heliocentric model of the solar system and I would loudly support you for doing so, regardless of the invalidity of your positions on the supernatural.

This is irrelevant. What is at issue here is whether he's truly an atheist. Prior to writing the "End of Faith," Harris did not identify himself as an atheist.

Wow, let's count the instances of bad reasoning:

1) "This is irrelevant" is a pointless objection.  Harris could be pope and it wouldn't invalidate his reasoning.  The arguer doesn't matter; the argument does.

2) "What is at issue here is whether he's truly an atheist." No True Scotsman fallacy.  I'm willing to bet anyone that sounds like they agree with you can't "truly" be an atheist.

3) "...Harris did not identify himself as an atheist." Prior to writing End of Faith, Harris was not on the national stage.  Prior to writing, there are all sorts of things Harris did not (and still has not) identified himself as not believing in. Can I chalk you up as an alchemist?  After all, you have not yet identified yourself as disbelieving in the powers of alchemy or your lack of belief in the existence of the Philosopher's Stone.

Looking back on this, I must congratulate you: every sentence in that paragraph contained either a mistake or a fallacy.  I think you get a set of steak knives for that.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Sam indicates that he himself didn't use the word atheist of his own opinions until after his book. source: "2007 Aspen Ideas Festival"

I would suspect that he only chose to identify himself as an atheist later because he had vested-interest to do so (the book was well-received in the atheistic community and money was to be had with speaking engagements and so forth). It was clear to me while reading the book that he was actually promoting some form of "empirical mysticism."

Suspect away.  You really need to come to grips with the fact that your opinion (denoted above by "I would suspect that...&quotEye-wink has no bearing on reality, or the thoughts of others.  Once you mature past that point, debating ideas can actually get easier.

Quote:

shikko wrote:

Please explain how his definition of faith is "false".  Is it false because you disagree with it, or don't like it?  Or is it false because there is another, better word that he should have used instead of faith?  Or something else?

(snip)

Faith is simply the letting go of fear which is the perfection of love.

This is some kind of weird straw man argument: you claim that since Harris didn't use your preferred definition of a word, that HE was somehow creating a false position and then attacking it.  I'm going to have to call in one of the fallacy gurus on that one.  I smell some projection there, but that's more a psychological problem than a logical one.

Quote:

shikko wrote:
He spent a lot of time talking about Islam; so what?  I also remember a few strong words for Catholicism and Judaism.  What does this the focus of his argument have to do with its validity?

It has to deal with a sense of fair-play.

This is not kickball during recess.  He is attacking the entire establishment, process and belief in religion.  He chose a target, and then dismantled it.  I'm sorry that making a solid, convincing argument strikes you as "unfair".

I take it back, I'm not sorry; it's your problem that criticism strikes you as "mean".

Quote:

shikko wrote:
Paisley wrote:
4) Harris redefines "religion" and "spirituality" to be mutually exclusive terms.

I will admit I should read The End of Faith again, but I doubt the accuracy of your point.  Please explain why you think this is a mistake.  I can see a religion having spiritual practices, but a spiritual practice does not necessarily entail a religious use.

Spiritual implies "spirit." This is a religious concept.

No, it is a "paranormal" concept; don't confuse the two.  It can also be shorthand for a suite of concepts and ideas regarding the biological basis of consciousness.

Paisley wrote:

I'm quite familiar with Buddhism (my own religious beliefs have a strong affinity with it). The truth is that Sam Harris has much more in common with my worldview than yours.

Considering that my "worldview", which I share with him, is lack of belief in any god, you can stop right there: you're sunk.

Quote:

1) Harris extensively studied Buddhism and meditation.

2) Harris praises "shamanism, gnosticism, kabbalah, and hermeticism."

3) Harris defines "atheism" as simply the destruction of bad ideas.

4) Harris promotes Buddhist and Hindu spiritual practices (Dzogchen Buddhist and Advaita Vedantic Hindu spirituality).

5) Harris believes in the paranormal, reincarnation and "xenoglossy."

...all of which are off topic.  You're here to try to convince us you're right and that we're wrong, not that Sam Harris supports you.  I will note that you are so far 1) impervious to accurate criticism and 2) failing miserably.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
tothiel wrote:Paisley

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have never denied that I live by an element of faith. Why is this irrational? It's not.


I never said that it was wholly irrational after the initial infraction, however, you already seated yourself with a concept that states rationality and logic aren't how you go about gaining knowledge or maintaining the truth of the claims put forth. (Fideism)

No, I never said this. I simply stated that I cannot give a complete rational account for faith without invoking some element of belief itself. This should not be misconstrued to mean that I have completely dispensed with all rationality.

I see faith and rationality (or belief and reason) working in tandem with each other. Perhaps I should say that rationality (or reason) requires the intuitive and the analytical aspects of the mind to work together.

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Reason and belief mutually entail each other.


The basis for the initial premise is where your falling short. You've given no reason to believe consciousness is eternal. It's a matter of 'you want it to be', therefore you assume it is. There's also the problem that even if consciousness is eternal it doesn't suggest God as a necessary component.

The basis for my initial premise is a belief based on the presence of a spiritual intuition (which is a form of sensory data). I actually feel the presence of a mind greater than my own. 

Also, if you believe that your personal consciousness or that consciouness in general is eternal, then you have just entered into the domain of theology (the belief in eternal consciousness or mind is definitely a god-concept.) At this point, the question is no longer whether you believe in the existence of God (or gods) but rather what is the nature of your theological belief (e.g. classical theism, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, etc.)

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Without belief, there is no critical thinking.


Blind faith can't be claimed as being something grounded in critical thought. Also, rational belief should follow critical thinking, not the other way around.

How did you arrive at the BELIEF that rational belief should follow critical thinking, not the other way around?

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Every logical argument begins with a premise or assumption that is believed to be true.


It's a matter of how you went about forming a premise. Just because an argument logically follows it's premise doesn't mean the premise is grounded in what we perceive as reality. I.E. It's a baseless assumption.
 

What you perceive to be reality is a belief in and of itself.

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Problem solving requires not only logical analysis but also intuitive input. This notion that faith and rationality are incompatible is simply false.

 
Depends on your use of the word faith. Belief without proof isn't compatible with the concept of being rational. You can however be rational after the initial infraction. But.... Just like before, you have seated yourself with a position that states logic and rationality aren't the tools of theism.

I have already responded to this misconception of yours earlier in this post.

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
If there is no eternal mind , then your personal life is ultimately without meaning and value because only an eternal mind can appreciate and value your life eternally.

 
Again, this statement is designed to be misleading. Life is not valued eternally by the universe, life however is valued by those who posses it.

No, the statement simply states a conclusion derived from logic. If a mind is required to value subjective experiences, then an eternal mind is required to value it eternally.

tothiel wrote:
That is the only relevant position concerning the question when consulting an atheist. If the universe is indifferent then it doesn't follow that the ultimate meaning of life be a question that is asked outside of our existence. Ultimately, as in, 'in the end' the value judgment concerning life only makes sense when asked what life means to 'us' during our existence.

In the atheistic worldview, your eventual fate is one in which you will simply cease to exist forever (eternal annihilation). As such, your worldview is ultimately one without hope.

tothiel wrote:
You use the word "ultimately" as if there is a truth beyond the only relevant answer. All your really saying is that the non-existence of life has no value which in turn doesn't address life in the context of itexisting.

No, what I am saying is that your worldview is ultimately one without hope. As such, all your work, all your striving, and all your suffering will ultimately be for naught. Your whole life will be nothing more than an exercise in futility.

tothiel wrote:
I would also like to address:
Paisley wrote:
God is love. The purpose of God is to love.


Which makes God's existence arbitrary at best and inherently unnecessary to say the least. 

Whatever this means.

I believe God is love and love is eternal. You may call this wishful thinking or fantasy. However, what you can't call it is a negative outlook on life.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:No, the

Paisley wrote:

No, the statement simply states a conclusion derived from logic. If a mind is required to value subjective experiences, then an eternal mind is required to value it eternally.

tothiel wrote:
That is the only relevant position concerning the question when consulting an atheist. If the universe is indifferent then it doesn't follow that the ultimate meaning of life be a question that is asked outside of our existence. Ultimately, as in, 'in the end' the value judgment concerning life only makes sense when asked what life means to 'us' during our existence.

In the atheistic worldview, your eventual fate is one in which you will simply cease to exist forever (eternal annihilation). As such, your worldview is ultimately one without hope.

This reminds me.

How is your pantheistic God going to survive the entropic death of the universe?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: I am not a

Paisley wrote:

 


 

I am not a fundamentalist Christian and I have never quoted Dan Barker as supporting my theistic views.  So, I fail to see your point.

 

Nor do I see your point......hmmmm, should we declare a stalemate ?

Since you are a fan of irony are there any other pseudo-atheists out there that you would like to bring to our attention ?  Just a reminder Paisley but the strength or weaknesses of atheism do not ride upon the shoulders of Sam Harris. 

Perhaps you should just stick to discussing your panentheistic clap trap instead of diverting to meaningless tangents ? ...see my point ?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

 

No, it's not premature. I'm familiar enough with Buddhism to know that it is not compatible with atheism. Evidently, you think it is.  

If you are familiar with Buddhism, then you know that there are forms that do not have deities. There is both theistic Buddhism and atheistic Buddhism. There are tall tales and legends about Buddha in most variants, but not all have Buddha as a God, nor any other God at all.

 

Nigel, how dare you contradict Paisley.  Didn't you read his post ? Paisley clearly stated that he is familiar with Buddhism and therefore his opinion on the matter must certainly trump yours.  Then, to make matters even worse, you supplied facts that contradicted his conveniently over-simplified view regarding Buddhism and deities. Atheists are so rude !!!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: " In the

Paisley wrote: " In the atheistic worldview, your eventual fate is one in which you will simply cease to exist forever (eternal annihilation). As such, your worldview is ultimately one without hope." ~

..... Well a buddhist might say, I We All is god, all is connected, all is one, god cannot die, as there is no beginning / no end. Everything is recycling (reincarnation).

Big J said this is the kingdom/heaven NOW. I (We) are one with the father cosmos. 

"Saving" messages , are they not ?

Anyone feel better now ? Does anyone fear from where they came ? Let's work on ending unnecessary suffering and fear in the NOW. 

Thanks atheistic Jesus and Buddha for the advise ......   

All interpretations are yours, be no fool .... and don't lie .... say I don't know .... I AM in awe ..... 

 

 

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Solipsism

nigelTheBold wrote:
Solipsism is a rather lonely metaphysics. As an epistemology, it is ultimately absurd, to use your phrase. So, if we can discount solipsism as an epistemology (though not as a metaphysics), let's consider science.

Do you agree that our sensations of the universe are actual observations of the universe? That is, are we observing an objective reality? If not, you subscribe to some form of solipsism, and I'm afraid our discussions end here, as our worldviews are too divergent.

I think you're conflating the terms pantheism with solipsism. They're not exactly the same. Incidentally, my theological beliefs are probably more in line with panentheism than pantheism.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Making the assumption we are observing a reality:

No, I don't accept that we are observing reality. We are observing phenomena (appearances). What constitutes ultimate reality is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

nigelTheBold wrote:
By Kant's logic, there are two kinds of truth-statements. There are analytic truth statements, which are statements that are assumed to be true. He has many examples of them, but the basic criteria for these is that assuming the opposite results in contradiction. Analytic statements are beyond observational evidence. Mathematic axioms fall into this realm.

So does the assumption that the scientific method works. It is assumed to be true, because assuming the opposite is contradictory (unless you are a solipsist, in which case anything goes).

You're making logical assumptions. This begs the question: How did you determine the validity of logic?

nigelTheBold wrote:
The other truths are synthetic. These are the truths that are built up on analytic truths, and must be supported by observation. Scientific hypothesis fall into this category. Scientific theories are just hypothesis that have always accurately predicted new things.

However, about fifty years ago, Willard Quine presented logic to indicate that analytic statements are indeterminate, at least for a subset of analytic statements. This was later extended by others to include all analytic statements.

This has been further extended into a better philosophical understanding of the scientific method. Basically, all analytic statements are tested when the synthetic statements based upon them are tested. This is a revolutionary idea. It means we no longer have to assume something is true. We have evidence to support its truth every time it is not contradicted. Every time it fits our current ontology, it is further "proven."

This holds for the scientific method. Every time it doesn't fail, its effectiveness is supported.

All scientific theories must be falisfiable to be considered scientific. Therefore, you can never say that a scientific theory represents the truth. All you can say that it has not been falsified yet. 

nigelTheBold wrote:
So, here's where we come to the interesting bit:

Science as an ontology is extremely congruent with observable reality. It has been tested and supported many times. As all knowledge is contingent on observation, yes, I have faith in science. I have faith in science the same way I have faith I'm not going to fall up into the sky tomorrow and out into airless space. I have faith in science the same way I have faith that the earth revolves around the sun. It's a faith grounded in observed reality, based not on some idea in my head, but in the observed facts around me. So, yes, I have faith in science.

Okay. So, you admit that you have faith in science. This proves my point....doesn't it?

nigelTheBold wrote:
I will promise you this: in each of these areas of ignorance, it will be science that gives us practical answers that align with observation. Not belief in some watered-down God. Not some desperate hope that your life extends beyond this one. Not in some churlish proclamation that atheism is an absurd worldview (which is an assertion, not a truth statement).

It'll be science.

What's science's explanation for uncaused physical events?

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:No, I never

Paisley wrote:
No, I never said this. I simply stated that I cannot give a complete rational account for faith without invoking some element of belief itself. This should not be misconstrued to mean that I have completely dispensed with all rationality.

I see faith and rationality (or belief and reason) working in tandem with each other. Perhaps I should say that rationality (or reason) requires the intuitive and the analytical aspects of the mind to work together.


You did say this. Once in post #207 where you clearly made a distinction between that which concerns faith and that which concerns rationality... And then in post #228 you introduced 'Fideism' which as you said, is non-rational. Combine these two post and you get a belief that is not only 'not' derived through rational avenues but is also maintained through non-rational means.


 
Quote:
The basis for my initial premise is a belief based on the presence of a spiritual intuition (which is a form of sensory data). I actually feel the presence of a mind greater than my own.


I don't feel it.... So, why should I take your word for such things when you clearly have an agenda. I mean, just how do you know that what your experiencing is a mind other than your own?

I realize that what I perceive may be incorrect. But I have no reason to doubt that which 'appears' to be objective reality just like I also have no reason to view your beliefs as rational.

Quote:
Also, if you believe that your personal consciousness or that consciousness in general is eternal, then you have just entered into the domain of theology (the belief in eternal consciousness or mind is definitely a god-concept.) At this point, the question is no longer whether you believe in the existence of God (or gods) but rather what is the nature of your theological belief (e.g. classical theism, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, etc.)


This is yet another naked assertion. A belief in supernatural components does 'not' entail a God concept.

Quote:
How did you arrive at the BELIEF that rational belief should follow critical thinking, not the other way around?


It doesn't make sense to call a belief 'rational' or 'logical' if it was in fact derived via non-rational means. Your describing someone who has rationalized a pre-existing belief, that isn't the same as adopting a belief by way of being rational and critical.


While we're on the subject of such things, there is also the problem of how 'Extraordinary Claims Demand
Extraordinary Proof'. I will be honest and say that maybe you are being wholly rational, and maybe your belief is objectively true, however, I can't judge you or your claims as such because again, I have no way to test it.

 


Quote:
What you perceive to be reality is a belief in and of itself.



Sure, but there is no denying that said belief is produced in an attempt to view the only seemingly objective reality we have access to.

Quote:
I have already responded to this misconception of yours earlier in this post.


It's not a misconception, I address this up at the top.

Quote:
No, the statement simply states a conclusion derived from logic. If a mind is required to value subjective experiences, then an eternal mind is required to value it eternally.


No, as I said before, value being eternal isn't relevant when consulting an atheist's position. The eternal angle simply doesn't matter....

Basically, it's a flat out attempt to ignore what it means when someone says that 'life means something to them'. I.E. It fails to recognize the concept in context. For example, a DVD player's purpose is of course, to play DVDs. If said DVD player were to be destroyed and in turn become non-existent, it doesn't then follow that it ultimately didn't have a purpose. Whether it is remembered or not doesn't change anything. The only thing your saying is that your purpose will be remembered. I.E. You have yet to show how a lack of something being remembered is equivalent to something never having existed.
 

Your use of the word Ultimately is an underhanded attempt to undermine and degrade ones subjective value judgment.


Quote:
In the atheistic worldview, your eventual fate is one in which you will simply cease to exist forever (eternal annihilation). As such, your worldview is ultimately one without hope.


Incorrect, my world view has room for hope. I hope for tomorrow knowing that at some point it won't come.

Quote:
No, what I am saying is that your worldview is ultimately one without hope. As such, all your work, all your striving, and all your suffering will ultimately be for naught. Your whole life will be nothing more than an exercise in futility.


Not really, my work, my suffering, my achievements, my failures, all serve their earthly purpose. After that, who cares? Ultimately the question isn't relevant beyond my existence.

[
Quote:
I believe God is love and love is eternal. You may call this wishful thinking or fantasy. However, what you can't call it is a negative outlook on life.


It absolutely is a negative outlook on life. You don't value living in and of itself. When faced with the concept that a reward and immortality don't await you, you immediately dump the remaining watter out of your half empty glass. But anyway, I wouldn't call it fantasy, I mean, what do I know? I could be wrong. It's just a matter of there being no reason to assume your right....

But anyway, this debate has gone no where so I think I'm going to simply disagree in general and bow out.

Have a good one.....
 

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
ultimate purpose?

 Just wondering is there anything I can do to disrupt, change, alter, or cause the ultimate purpose of existence to fail (according to your belief)?

I read the entire thread and I have not seen this addressed yet.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
That is a GREAT question

  That is a GREAT question Magmus, as a buddha said, what the fuck are you worrying about,  WHY WORRY ?!        

Big J got pissed and screamed at the theists, so they killed him  ......  because they are devil possessed ..... (devil=fear)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Well kiddies I am growing

Well kiddies I am growing weary of watching my fellow atheists effectively chew the flesh off of Paisley's bones only to have him deny that he is being eaten alive.  His unproven assertions have proven to be nothing more than unproven assertions and so I'm going to get off of this panentheistic merry-go round.

Bon Apetit !

 


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Magus, Were you asking me

Magus,

 

Were you asking me or Paisly?

 

If me, then I would have to say yes. My self imposed purpose as well as my value judgment concerning life could be crushed. I'm a fairly positive person but I'm only human. If you weren't asking me then just ignore the post.  But again have fun with the debate all.

 

P.S. Interesting question BTW...

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch